It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Avganistan government project

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 08:22 PM
link   
1.Before russian occupation, Avganistan had 5000 acres with poppy seeds (used for heroin production).
2.During russian occupation, there were 0 acres under poppy seeds.
3.Currently, under US control, there are 280 000 acres and every year there is more an more...

Fresh money for tired economies...




posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 08:27 PM
link   
Care to substantiate said claims, swimmer?

Not that I'm doubting such, just that I'd like to See some further documentaton thereof.

The "world" is replete with exaggerations and fantastical claims. no?

... just sayin'.

 

[edit: speeling]

[edit on 7-8-2007 by 12m8keall2c]



posted on Aug, 7 2007 @ 10:42 PM
link   
These are facts. The only thing that changed is that there are more acres with poppy seeds every day.
I will find a link when I have more time.



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 06:26 AM
link   
History check.

The Russian invasion of Afghanistan destabilized Afghanistan badly and gave rise to a host of warlord-controlled regions, with the warlords attempting to finance themselves through the opium trade.

Yes, Russia fought the opium trade in Afghanistan, but only because it was funding their enemies. They also contributed to the creation of the problem by invading though.

Zero acres? Good luck proving that.

www.unodc.org...

If you'll have a look at the UN Statistics, you can infer that production in 1979 was about 2000 tons, as it is up 15 fold since then.

It also substantiates my claims that the war created a major incentive to opium production.



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 06:56 AM
link   
blah blah blah...facts speak better than anything.



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 09:27 AM
link   
Yes, facts speak quite loudly.

The facts according to the United Nations, are as follows:


Afghanistan's opium production (3400 tons in 2002) increased more than 15-fold since 1979;


This means that when the war began, Afghanistan was producing about 2000 tons of opium, give or take.


The opium economy developed in Afghanistan because of:
Lack of effective government administration until the recent past;
Degradation of agriculture and most economic infrastructure due to twenty years of war;
A war economy and related black marketeering.
Through the 1980s and 1990s several competing factions financed their war efforts with opium revenue. Since most of the opium producing provinces came under Taliban control after 1996, the Taliban reaped the largest gains from the opium economy.


The Russian invasion increased the opium economy by further destabilizing afghanistan and by creating the need for a cash crop for the warlords to finance their war efforts with.
Furthermore, Russia reduced Afghanistan's ability to rely on other crops.



And do you want to know what's REALLY ironic?

Over three-quarters the heroin sold in Europe, and virtually all of it in Russia, originates in Afghanistan


Apparently the Russians were breathing too deeply while they burned all those opium fields, eh? Russia, the great opium fighter, is the end market. Without the cash from the end users, the opium trade would collapse, would it not? And would that not make the Russian people the primary financiers of Afghan opium production?


All quotes from my previous link.



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 09:41 AM
link   
But the thing is, before Afghanistan was invaded there was a ban on opium production.


www.americandaily.com...


In 2000, the Taliban banned opium production in Afghanistan, as it became illegal to grow poppies. Any farmer caught cultivating the cash crop would be severely punished--probably by death. By the middle of 2001, there was basically no opium produced in Afghanistan, though that nation usually led the world in production of the drug. However, since the U.S. led invasion, the poppy fields are growing again and the opium trade is flourishing as never before. Apparently, Bush's idea of a 'War on Terror' is making the world safe for the narcotics trade.


As seen here that there were stiff penalties for producing opium by the Taliban.

Here is an interesting note.



The Taliban had relied on opium sales to finance their operations until July 2000. It was then that the regime's leader Mullah Mohammed Omar issued a ban on the drug trade, because he claimed that it conflicted with Islamic law. However, it is more likely that the move was made to boost the slumping prices of opium across Europe, after Afghanistan had produced an all-time high of 4,600 tons in 1999. Less than a year later, a U.N. delegation visited the areas of the country where poppies were traditionally grown and found nothing. The head of the U.N. Drug Control Program said: "There are no poppies. It's amazing."


I am no expert on this field but I do remember this part before the war on terror.

Some estimate since the war started there production went up about 800% or something.


If you want to look at more if you think this is tripe, goto google and type in Taliban banned or bans opium.



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 01:47 PM
link   
No, you're absolutely correct, ThichHeaded, I never intended to in any way deny that Afghanistan is well on its way to becoming a narco state, either because because of failure on the part of the United States and the Afghani government we have supported, or worse yet, given the history of our CIA, quite possible because of US complicity in the drug trade.

My only contention here is that whatever source has given swimmer the notion that Russia destroyed the opium trade in Afghanistan is likely dealing in propaganda. Rather than a "good Russia, evil US" situation, we are looking at something more along the lines of Russia creating the conditions for something bad to happen, and the United States picking up that ball running with it. I've learned to accept the fact that the world is a dirty place. I have not yet learned how to deal with people who insist that they can live in it and keep their hands clean.

[edit on 8-8-2007 by The Vagabond]



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 10:33 PM
link   
Ya I see what you are saying. The OP didn't even say anything useful yet.

I am not sure about the Russia part of this, nor do I really care. I only know about the US thing because of my research on 9/11.

Like I said before I am no expert on this so I don't want you to think I am trying to trump you. I wasn't sure you knew about the ban the Taliban had on that drug production before they were over thrown.



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 11:43 PM
link   
I was aware of it, but I figured it was an unnecessary point of contention and a liability to my point.

The thing is, even though the Taliban banned cultivation and reversed the growth trend in harvests, prior to that they had also been the greatest beneficiary of the opium trade in Afghanistan, and they never did outlaw the trade of opium- only cultivation.

So there's a big can of worms about them compromising their religious stance during time of war, or perhaps never even seriously having a religious object, but rather only banning the cultivation to curry favor in the international community and take money away from local warlords. Afterall, once you've got control of the situation, why not reduce external influences that could destabilize that?

I hate when people try to discredit my main argument by attacking peripheral issues where they have better chances, so I figured I'd avoid unnecessarily presenting a target to swimmer or anyone else. I guess I just can't help thinking like a debater, especially now, while the tournament is on.



posted on Aug, 8 2007 @ 11:57 PM
link   
Its cool. I wasnt trying to attack you or anything. Like i said.. i lmew nothing prior to what i stated so..

Thanks for the info.

[edit on 8/8/2007 by ThichHeaded]



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 09:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by The Vagabond
No, you're absolutely correct, ThichHeaded, I never intended to in any way deny that Afghanistan is well on its way to becoming a narco state, either because because of failure on the part of the United States and the Afghani government we have supported, or worse yet, given the history of our CIA, quite possible because of US complicity in the drug trade.

My only contention here is that whatever source has given swimmer the notion that Russia destroyed the opium trade in Afghanistan is likely dealing in propaganda. Rather than a "good Russia, evil US" situation, we are looking at something more along the lines of Russia creating the conditions for something bad to happen, and the United States picking up that ball running with it. I've learned to accept the fact that the world is a dirty place. I have not yet learned how to deal with people who insist that they can live in it and keep their hands clean.

[edit on by The Vagabond]


Russians were in those tanks in Avganistan, true. But, Russians did not make decisions, SOVIETS did.

Soviets are not good guys. Their control over Avganistan was different from American, though.

I strongly believe that CIA is the biggest drug dealing company in the world. When I say "drugs", I mean heroin and other strong drugs.

Simple things are simple: if Soviets were able to stop the production of heroin, why are Americans on the opposite end - the heroin production is enormous, growing every second, and yet, US army "cannot stop it", things are "complicated"?



posted on Aug, 10 2007 @ 10:09 PM
link   
I will choose my words carefully because it is very likely that the CIA is in fact complicit in the drug trade, and I do not intend to defend the wrongdoing of any country, even if I'm from that country.

However The Soviets could not stop heroin production. If they could have they would have, because the heroin was funding their enemies, but they didn't stop it. It wasn't within their capabilities.

It is not within the capabilities of the US either. History has shown many times that it is extremely difficult to cut off a product when it is easy to produce, people want it, and it's worth money.

The US seems to take the opinion that they can't stop it, and drugs make an effective weapon anyway, so they may as well get in the game. I disagree with that decision, but that's what they're up to.

As for Russia vs Soviets- you're splitting hairs. I understand that there were other nations in the Soviet Union, however considering that Russia was the first and most powerful state in the Soviet Union, Russia can hardly deny responsibility for the actions of the USSR.

For a Russian to say "it wasn't us, it was the soviets" would be like me saying, "I'm from California, so I'm not responsible for the CIA- that was America, not California.

Pot, meet the Kettle.



posted on Aug, 13 2007 @ 10:54 AM
link   
But, you really can say that you do not agree with what US government is doing, say, in Iraq? Or what US gov is doing with agriculture (messing with genetics)? You can say that, right?
Why would not Russians say that too, about Soviets, who were internationals, mostly very unfriendly towards Russians?

But the point is - if Soviets STOPPED the production of heroin, that is possible to do. And they, in fact, COMPLETELY STOPPED the heroin production in Avganistan.

Obvious fact is - US army helps the production of heroin. That is so notorious and obvious, that you do not have to be too informed to understand that. Yet, the propaganda, the media, will help you turn that obvious truth into a "complicated" political situation, "efforts" of US army and CIA are being made....blah, blah blah.

Just go and burn the fields! Nobody can stop US army in doing that. I could do it with a couple of planes, and a few guys. Spread chemicals and that's it.

But, if I tried, US army would surely shut me down. Because, they are there to make sure that the heroin industry is protected. Hundreds of billions of dollars are made that way. How do you think "federal reserve" gets the money to help the bad economy survive? Fresh money, without any taxes...drug money!





[edit on 13-8-2007 by swimmer]



posted on Aug, 13 2007 @ 05:21 PM
link   
First, there is a difference between disagreeing and not being responsible. Yes I disagree with the war in Iraq, but even still, as an American, I share responsibility for my country's actions because my taxes are paying for that war and I have not done anything to resist it.

I have a choice- I can either remain an American and share responsibility, or I can forsake my country and not be responsible. I chose the first.

In similar fashion, Russia bears responsibility for Soviet actions because it did not resist. Do you seriously believe that the most powerful nation within the Soviet Union can avail itself of a defense by reason of force majeur?

Which nation invaded Russia to make it subject to the Soviet Union? Russia is the only nation of the former Soviet Union that joined that organization without being invaded by foreign communist troops. Russia is the only nation of the Soviet Union which became Soviet on its own. Russia, the primary military and economic power of the Soviet Union, and the seat of Soviet government, can hardly claim that it had nothing to do with Soviet actions. Anyone who claims otherwise is feeding you propagranda because they want to make you ingorant of history in order to repeat it.

You have claimed repeatedly that the Soviets stopped heroin in Afghanistan but you have not shown us any proof. I have shown documents from the UN that say you are incorrect on this issue, and in fact that Soviet actions were partially responsible for increases in heroin production in Afghanistan.

The US probably does support the drug trade, but do you really claim that it's that easy to stop? If it's so easy to stop, why was the Soviet Union unable to do it?
The problem with the "just spread chemicals" answer is poisoning Afghanistan's arable land will leave them unable to grow many kinds of crops, not just opium, not to mention the possible health affects on people involed in dumping very large volumes of poison on a country from the air.


You obviously know very little about banking if you think the federal reserve is getting its money from the drug trade. Do you not realize that the federal reserve has the power to essentially create their fake money out of thin air?
The function of covert state sponsorship of the drug trade has historically been to finance covert operations and support regimes the US cannot overtly support. Compared to the budget of the United States, the amount that we are able to get out of the drug trade is negligible. It's useful because it's money without congressional oversight or consent, not because there is enough to support the economy of a first world nation.

Now go get facts before you bother me again. I will not respond unless you have evidence instead of meaningless claims.



posted on Aug, 14 2007 @ 03:58 PM
link   
The world fact book lists opium as the most importand crop of Afghanastan. It is also interesting to note that a small percentage of the land is suitible for farming.
world fact book



new topics




 
0

log in

join